Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35302
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br /></em><br />A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br /><br /><em>The background<br /></em><br />In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br /><br />The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br /><br />In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br /><br />However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true" title="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35302
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br /></em><br />A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br /><br /><em>The background<br /></em><br />In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br /><br />The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br /><br />In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br /><br />However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true" title="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06cf5638e2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35302,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683409,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35302
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&amp;#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judiciary&amp;rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&amp;rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&amp;rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&amp;rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &amp;ldquo;action taken&amp;rdquo; reports on his letters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&amp;rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &amp;ldquo;good cause shown&amp;rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot; title=&quot;http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br /></em><br />A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br /><br /><em>The background<br /></em><br />In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br /><br />The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br /><br />In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br /><br />However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true" title="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 35302,
		'title' => 'Information at the court's discretion -Aniket Aga',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br />
</em><br />
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br />
<br />
<em>The background<br />
</em><br />
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br />
<br />
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br />
<br />
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4683409,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 35302,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu

The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br /></em><br />A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br /><br /><em>The background<br /></em><br />In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br /><br />The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br /><br />In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br /><br />However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true" title="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 35302,
	'title' => 'Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br />
</em><br />
A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br />
<br />
<em>The background<br />
</em><br />
In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br />
<br />
The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br />
<br />
However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 December, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'information-at-the-court039s-discretion-aniket-aga-4683409',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4683409,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 35302
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Information at the court&#039;s discretion -Aniket Aga'
$metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,Right to Information (RTI),Right to Information Act,RTI Act'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu

The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court

A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>The judiciary&rsquo;s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court<br /></em><br />A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India&rsquo;s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court&rsquo;s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court&rsquo;s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.<br /><br /><em>The background<br /></em><br />In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought &ldquo;action taken&rdquo; reports on his letters.<br /><br />The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.<br /><br />In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra&rsquo;s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings.<br /><br />However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon &ldquo;good cause shown&rdquo;. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true" title="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece?homepage=true">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Information at the court's discretion -Aniket Aga

-The Hindu The judiciary’s brazen disregard for the RTI has now got a stamp of approval from a high court A six-year-long farce concluded at the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2017, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the worse for it. At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by implication, India’s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court’s judgment strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the Supreme Court’s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI. The background In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices, essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he sought “action taken” reports on his letters. The Registry could have lawfully disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available. Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Misra to apply under the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Misra challenged this response before the then Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. In May 2011, appearing before the Commission, the Additional Registrar of the Court, Smita Sharma objected only to the use of the RTI, and not to Mr. Misra’s request per se. She maintained that the Supreme Court Rules alone governed access to the information he had sought. Claiming that the Rules were consistent with the RTI, she asked Mr. Gandhi to reinstate the primacy of Supreme Court Rules over the RTI, in line with previous Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings. However, as Mr. Gandhi noted in his decision, the Supreme Court Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for: a time frame for furnishing information; an appeal mechanism, and penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information. Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon “good cause shown”. In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone. Please click here to read more.